You are on page 1of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7872

WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON, II,


Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00323-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:

January 22, 2013

Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Anderson, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
William Lee Anderson, II, seeks to appeal the district
courts

order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on


his

28

U.S.C.

appealable

2254

unless

(2006)

petition.

circuit

justice

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

The
or

order

judge

is

not

issues

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Anderson has not made the requisite showing.
we

deny

Andersons

motions

to
2

appoint

counsel,

Accordingly,
and

for

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma


pauperis,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED